Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Claire, you are generally awesome.. and you post some interesting thoughts.. however I can't "like" them unfortunately cos I don't want people who know me in real life to know that I like your views. I envy you cos you can speak your mind so freely. Unfortunately a single man is the least free person on the planet because they are at very real and large risk of not having any children. A woman has no such concerns however. Just wanted to say that :)

Dispossessed and oppressed men will simply bide their time and wait for a breakdown in law and order before they assert and avenge themselves.

Feminism has given same sex couples the civil partnership. Women don't care about men having sex with me. Female MPs are less bothered by gay marriage than male MPs.

Feminism is about to give same sex couples gay marriage. This is of course the penultimate act of desecrating marriage. Before you poo on marriage you wee on it. What could be worse than giving same sex couples gay marriage? Forbid heterosexual couples from getting married, of course, and say marriage can only be the privilege of same-sex couples.

Feminism is really not interested in transgender people. While feminists are flattered that emasculated and mentally ill men should want to become women - imitation is after all the highest form of flattery - they do not respect them, as Julie Bindlel does not. Feminism regards transgender people as "other" as they do the male sex. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7 It is really a divide and rule tactic to keep the enemy busy fighting each other by setting them against each other, probably.

The hierarchy in our matriarchy is this: (Class A) Women (Class B) Men of other Races (Class C) Homosexuals (Class D) Transgender People (Class E) Men of their own race. "We know who is in power by those whom we cannot criticise."

What the matriarchy might do for transgender men is to pass totalitarian legislation to protect them from having their feelings hurt by men in Class B, C and E. To do so would be a way of rattling their cages, poking at them with stick in order to show them who is boss. If you are supreme you need to assert your authority from time to time. By forcing male employers in Class E to hire someone they despise and regard as a freak is a very effective way of rubbing their noses in it.

Sunday, 14 April 2013

No, feminism has utterly destroyed, crushed and made mincemeat of his manhood. He is so utterly reduced and degraded that a female and a foreigner has to point out the perniciousness of the feminism herself and point out some bald evolutionary facts:

1. The male of any species has to fight to have access to females to perpetuate his genes.

2. Because the Western female human is so sexually promiscuous and will give sex at the drop of a pair of trouser, Western men only have to humour her and agree with her to have sex with her. (This means agreeing with her about feminism to the detriment of his own long term interests and certainly at the expense of the long term national interest.)

These never married women who have illegitimate children with physical and learning disabilities are of course part of the parasitical pornocracy that is even now multiplying at the taxpayers' expense.

Because they all have the vote, and the political establishment relies on votes, they will not be criticising them, oh no.

Labour will, like Cameron, be promising them all sorts of goodies so as to attract the vote of the parasitical pornocrat. (Who is a parasitical pornocrat? Any mother who has (1) never been married and (2) never had a job (3) whose children will never have a job nor marry before having children.)

The BNP, who is against the LibLabCon for conspiring to facilitate immigration at the expense of the indigenous working classes, is too afraid to say anything about the parasitical pornocracy too. This is because, of all the political parties, the BNP has the highest proportion of members who were singly-parented.

Nick Griffin will not be saying anything about widespread illegitimacy because he does not want to alienate BNP members, whose members are mostly illegitimate.

The BNP is thefore afraid of supporting marriage.

So there we are: nothing will be said, and nothing will be done: not by the political establishment, and not by those who oppose the political establishment.

There was a reason why the slut was hated with a visceral venom by all sensible people in advanced civilisations, but this healthy instinct has long since been bred out of the British.

It began being bred out of the British when the Family Allowances Act 1945 was passed.

And no political party in the UK will propose a single policy that will actually support marriage.

Perhaps they already think it is too late and we are back to all that "orderly management of decline" shit so we can look forward to a future where the only couples who are married are gay, while everyone else is slut and a bastard.

But if our civilisaiton is dying something then we the dying ought to know what it is we are dying of. It may do us no good and not prevent our dying, but we would at least serve the purpose of being a terrible warning to other races, nations and civilisations of the moral dangers of allowing feminism to stick her stiletto heel in your door.

Is it rape or just theft if you have sex with a prostitute without paying?

I would say it depends. If you made her think you would pay but ran off without paying after enjoying services, then that would be theft and obtaining services by deception.

If you had sex with her knowing that she did not want to have sex with you at any price then it would be rape.

The prostitute blogger wonders why her clients appear unfazed by her lack of enthusiasm.

I have never hired a prostitute but I imagine the attractions of doing so would be the power one feels when think "She doesn't even have to fancy me but knows she will have to have sex with me or she won't get paid."

This logic of this power of obtaining consent or quiescence would extend to rape, whose purpose is to enforce submission without consent. Rape would be how a man would assert power over a woman or even over another man or men, if he forces him or them to watch.

Some clients might want a "girlfriend" experience, or they might wish for something called a "rape" experience. The punter is the piper, and he calls the tune.

What is saddening is that a woman as highly educated as this woman should be reduced to prostitution and blogging about it.

Let us women be honest, even chaste wives: sex can be a bit like work sometimes, something to tick off on one's list of things to do.

If we women are to be in the business of providing sexual services and bringing up the next generation, then let us do it well while making it as easy on ourselves as possible. Surely, it would be easier on ourselves to have only one partner who wants our sexual services exclusively in the long term who will provide for us and our children, than have to put up with a stream of sub-alpha punters with dirty fingernails?

Is this what happens to female graduates then, when , instead of studying for a useless degree, they could have married a decent man and be bringing up children who would be a credit to them and their choice of partner , and by extension their reproductive choice?

Feminism has a lot to answer for, has it not? Because of Feminism, there are no decent men left. Dirt cheap slut sex has utterly corrupted the morals of the men of the West, who now think and talk and behave like women, and do hypocrisy and cowardice just as well as the worst of their women.

Feminism tricked this woman into doing a degree that turned out to be financially unproductive.

Show and Tell- Women's Committee explore sexuality

Women's committee are spearheading an anonymous sexual awareness project, to be displayed next Monday.

Students at the University have been called to submit anonymous writing about their sexual experiences to a project, spearheaded by Women's Committee, called 'Tell'. The aim is to break the taboo around sexuality, and to learn more about the sexuality of ourselves and others.

This event has been popular in previous years, with some beautiful stories and poems, and some harrowing tales of sexual abuse. This will be the fourth edition of the anthology.

On Monday of week nine, members of the Committee, and other people who were interested, got together in Holgate Hall to create some artwork based on sex and sexuality. Art supplies and nibbles were provided and everyone got creative. This is the 'Show' part of the exhibition. This art will be displayed, along with the anthology, on the Monday of week ten.

Emily Inglis, a regular attendee at Women's Committee, said; "It's a creative way to get rid of the social stigma around sex, and making people realise that the word "Inappropriate" really needs to be redefined."

Submissions close tomorrow, if you want to contribute anything to the anthology, go to www.tell-york.com.

Friday, 12 April 2013

Did any of you men notice that your masculine and parental authority ended last month?

"the definition of domestic violence will now include ‘coercive control’. The previous definition defined domestic violence as a single act or incident. The new definition recognises that patterns of behaviour and separate instances of control can add up to abuse - including instances of intimidation, isolation, depriving victims of their financial independence or material possessions and regulating their everyday behaviour"

So today I encountered someone who thinks the change in law to recognise emotional abuse is a terribly bad thing, which should be protested.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

My mind boggles. Surely nobody is so ignorant that they genuinely think "emotional abuse" is just a label to hurt men with?! Jesus.
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@katjevanloon Seriously, I can't even put into words how offensive I found the person's attitude. Apparently I hate all men. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@joec @itsjustahobby Jesus wept... When even the BNP are kicking you out, you know you're crossing a major line. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@itsjustahobby Just blocked her; not having that sort of person in my life! Those attitudes could be really triggering. :-/
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

@itsjustahobby Yeah, just very glad I blocked her; I think I was in danger of really taking her vile opinions personally. Not nice!!
— Emma Tofi (@EmmaTofi) April 12, 2013

How is that for rational debate, boys and girls? Disagreement, outrage, accusation, overt display of victimhood, abuse, smear and finally censorship - the tactic and refuge of the passive-aggressive feminist.

Let us see if https://twitter.com/VictoriaMonro who has already blocked me on Twitter, will engage with me on the subject of feminism being the mortal enemy of libertarianism and whther deigns to display my comment on her blog.

... just seating a woman at the top is no guarantee of shared power with the women working down below. "When I hear feminist porn," performer and producer Bella Vendetta told me:

"I imagine porn made by feminists, which makes me believe that I'm going to be treated very well, and be informed about what it is I am expected to do. I expect it will be marketed in a way that doesn't insult me, and I expect I'll be paid a fair wage.

"Unfortunately, I have found that if the term feminist porn is being used, I can almost guarantee that it means I will be offered an incredibly low rate. To me, it is not empowering to accept half my rate to have sex on film."

Apparently, it does not pay as well as non-feminist porn. Feminist porn stars are therefore stupid, because feminism is stupid.

while certain strands of feminism have become consumed with celebrating women assuming positions of leadership in business, when feminists work to ban pornography, they guarantee that porn is one business where women won't find commensurate power and control over their work.

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable. In practice, under a liberal interpretation [of the Koran], acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

Thursday, 11 April 2013

We know what happens to lions with harems when they have to defend themselves against other males who want access to their females.

The lionesses are not supposed to interfere and do not assist the father of their cubs against the encroaching male.

They do not assist him because they know that if he is a loses it means he is physically less fit and if he is physically less fit, they don't want his babies.

They would suffer their own already born cubs to be killed by this new male in order to have the superior genes of the triumphant male.

Lionesses are therefore more ruthlessly eugenic than human feminist females, who only think about themselves and in the short term.

However, if this pride of lions were to go feminist, then the lionesses would tell the lion that it is OK to trust strange male lions and assure him that nothing bad will happen to them, and he will be obliged to listen politely. Eventually, the feminised lion will one day behave as if he were a lioness and come to see other males as potential playmates, not knowing that while nothing bad will happen to the females, something very bad will happen to him.

are in the Labour Party and cannot even summon up the moral energy to make a fuss that the Conservative Party has no principles and that the leader of the Conservative Party is not in fact a Conservative.

Clearly, they do not think as I do that the blame for the ills of the nation can be laid at the door of this omission - this omission to insert an official statement of principles in the constitution of the Conservative Party.

I can see that this omission was perhaps deliberate, for not having principles gives the leader and his cronies the ability to trim their sails to the prevailing wind and adopt the cause of expediency in order to stay in office or come to office.

What is the harm of this, you ask?

It will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage at the hands of a Conservative Prime Minister.

If you are not shocked and appalled, then you clearly you do not respect the institution of marriage,and the overwhelming number of people in Britain do not. It is now a badge of Britishness to say that a wedding certificate is only a piece of paper not fit to wipe our bottoms with.

Cameron does not understand or will not be told that conferring upon couples who are only capable of recreational sex with each other the privilege of marriage is the ultimate in the desecration of marriage. You really cannot go any further than that in policy terms.

Yet he will not be told and no one can explain it to him.

The awful truth is that not a single party in the land dares to propose or support policies that would actually support marriage.

The awful truth is that no one seems to understand that to support the institution of marriage, one has to treat marriage as a privilegeto be reserved for heterosexual couples only.

The awful truth is that in order to support marriage (and not just pay it lip service) married parents must be privileged over unmarried parents.

And the reason for this?

Since most babies in Britain are in fact illegitimate, this would mean that most mothers are self-evidently sluts, or fornicatresses, if you prefer. This means that there are more SSMs https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Spinster-Single-Mums-a-burden-on-the-state/417696111659379 than there are non-SSMs whose children are legitimate. This means that they must make up a significant percentage of the female vote which Cameron, who did not win outright the last election (because he feared to promote or even articulate Conservative principles), feels he can ill afford to alienate.

Principles can however be very useful.

Old Labour had principles. Being a socialist party, it had the principle of nationalising everything in sight. This was found not to be very popular and so they felt they had to change it in a way that would reassure their potential supporters ie voters who owned shares in the newly privatised utitlities. Clause iv of their constitution contained the clause that said they would nationalise everything in sight and therefore clause iv had to be removed in order to reassure voters with shareholdings in British Gas and British Telecom. After much rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, this was successfully accomplished in 1995. The voter being reassured, Labour went on to win the election in 1997.

The fact that Labour Party constitution had a clause stating this policy turned out to be a blessing in disguise, for it served to be the clear blue water that divided Old Labour (not electable) from New Labour (infinitely electable).

The Tories congratulated themselves on the fact that they had no principles and on the fact that Conservative Party principles were always whatever the leader of the party and his cronies said they were, which was all very convenient and expedient.

But what if their leader was not a Conservative and had no idea what Conservative principles are?

Can it really be the case that Conservative Party is claiming that its principles are contained in the Foreword of this piece of puffery at

What would Disraeli, Peel or Salisbury make of this farrago of absurdities? We can only imagine.

The moral of this story, boys and girls, is that because Labour had principles and took them seriously, they went on to win a general election. Because they saw the importance of having principles, they made a big thing about having to change them, even though everyone quarrelled with each other and was very upset. However, because they were making such a fuss, this made everyone notice them and take them seriously. The result was that they went on to win an election by a landslide.

As for the Tories, who had no principles, they had the purpose of their party subverted by a convictionless charlatan, who had no idea what Magna Carta was even though he went to Eton, and foisted gay marriage on the nation while claiming to be a Conservative.

Sadly for the Conservatives, most of them were so dumbed down by the miasma of illegitimacy and low moral and educational standards all around them that they no longer knew what a principle is nor what principles were for and believed it was something to to do with sacrifice, inconvenience and the unnecessary narrowing of one's options. They no longer had any idea what Conservative principles were because it is not written down anywhere, and came to prefer the Humpty Dumpty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking-Glass approach to Conservative principles, which meant that they left such things to their leader. While a few protested, most of them who did not like thinking very much did not mind. Eventually, Conservatism became Whateverism - an idea that that salvation lies in doing whatever your leader says while hoping for the best. Whateverism does not take into account that your leader might be an unprincipled charlatan or perhaps even an alien from outer space who wishes to subvert your society and destroy it, because it is best not to worry oneself too much about these things.

And, so, boys and girls, that is how Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland came to have gay marriage - because the Conservative Party had no principles and no one cared. No one cared because a nation of sluts and bastards would not care about such abstract concepts such as principles, much less Conservative principles.

Marriage is an abstract principle, and those who do not make the effort of abiding by abstract principles eventually return to barbarism and live like animals, caring only to have sex, food and shelter. Eventually, they will become like cattle, to be exploited by other races who do respect marriage, if they do not become extinct altogether.

Eventually, the Whateverists lurched ever more madly into having sex for the sake of having sex, with mothers not looking after their children properly or bringing them up to be good and obedient children.

Eventually, the children of heterosexual couples became the sexual playthings of homosexuals and then went on to become homosexual themselves too. They in turn preyed on the children of other heterosexual couples. Their numbers declined drastically and eventually, because no one saw the point of having children any more, there was only one lone homosexual left.

And when he too died (it was believed he committed suicide) there were no Britons left in the world any more.

And that is why gay marriage and not having principles is wrong and bad for your civilisation.

Friday, 5 April 2013

That the West has prospered since feminism is an illusion since it was fueled by consumerism and reckless borrowing and lending by individuals and governments. People only appear to be prosperous if they practise conspicuous consumption and spend extravagantly and ostentatiously.

In fact, what the Liberal West did was to dissipate and consume the wealth that was acquired by the by its ancestor, the Imperial West, without replacing it, whom it now affects to despise for being sexist, racist, homophobic, nationalistic, militaristic and imperialistic.

They are like the idle rich children of wealthy parents, who have no idea how their ancestors acquired their wealth and who could not care less, as long as they had money to spend. Indeed, most of them even affect to despise their parents and their ancestry.

It goes without saying that they do not respect the institution of marriage. Indeed, they do not even now know its original purpose nor what they have to do to respect it. These days, it is practically compulsory to be a fornicatress if you are a woman in the West. Most Western men insist on “trying before buying” and a woman who insists on being a virgin bride is looked upon with pity and contempt, for the West is now the land of compulsory fornication, and Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland describes it perfectly.

Such is its corruption that even senior Catholic priests cannot bring themselves to say that a fornicatress is a slut, and that even one act of fornication makes a woman a fornicatress and therefore a slut.

Just one act fornication makes you a slut? That is so harsh, non-judgmental liberals will cry, quite forgetting all that they have learnt in human reproduction, for a woman who has sex just once could be impregnated, and therefore ruined if she is not already married.

Why would any rational man want the responsibility of providing for another man's child, especially if he is an ill-bred brat whose mother is a stupid slut?

But most women in the West are sluts and most women have the baggage of another man's offspring so Western man must take their women as they are, or find foreign women whom they believe are not as promiscuous as their own.

Soon, most of the West will have legalised gay marriage. If you wanted to desecrate marriage and make a mockery of it, there is no better way of doing that than by legalising gay marriage.

When the man who proposes this is in fact the leader of the Conservative Party, then you must accept that social conservatism is now considered odd, if not actually “extremist”, for anything that deviates from the extremist liberal norm must by definition be labelled extremist.

It is actually not much fun being a social conservative saying no to everything that might give people pleasure, which is why Man created God to keep himself on the straight and narrow. Without a general belief in God, a society would have to rely on dictators like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini to keep most people on the straight and narrow, for the exercise of moral restraint is necessary to prolong the life of your race, nation and ultimately your civilisation and perhaps the human race.

Liberal atheists in practice worship like a deity the idea of tolerating sex between consenting adults. This means that they tolerate extramarital sex, under the impression that sexual morality has no bearing on general moral standards. When it is pointed out to them that there is a clear link between illegitimacy and crime, they get very angry. Their tactic is to deny that there is a link or deny that it affects them or anyone that they know, until they themselves become a victim of crime.

Extramarital sex of course includes premarital sex ie sex with anyone you are not married to, which includes homo sex. To get round this problem, liberals are now proposing same-sex marriage in rather the same way a murderer who wishes to escape the penalty for murder would legalise murder, quite ignoring the fact that if murder were legalised then murderers would in turn be murdered by the supporters of anyone they murder and bring about the breakdown of their society in an orgy of homicidal licence.

It has been said that the Conservative Prime Minister who proposes to legalise gay marriage is doing so at the behest of his wife and his gay Downing Street advisers. So entirely without moral conviction is he that he cannot see anything wrong about this, even though he is supposed to come from the best family as well as going to the best school and university in the land. Such alarmingly low moral and educational standards should be cause for alarm by all who live in this country and are subject to its laws, but most are complacent or indifferent to the fact that they are being led by a man without convictions who is either a fool, a knave, or both, and is not ashamed of being told what to do by his wife.

“Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil.”

@1party4all I am going to block you Claire. This amount of tweets is just harassment. I don't know why you think I am a feminist and enemy.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

I wonder why feminists and those taught by them always say "amount of times" when they should know better. Perhaps feminists no longer see the point of being grammatically correct. Her final sentence does not make any sense.

I say Cultural Marxism is the same as Feminism. She denies this. I ask her what is the difference. She tells me to "do the research"!

The issue of child care is a societal one, not a female one. We need to cast our net wider when looking for solutions.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 4, 2013

This woman presumably wants free childcare provided by the state while women take men's jobs and do them badly. In the meantime unemployed men failed by the female-dominated teaching profession watch porn all day thinking of ways to become more successful paedophiles.

Does feminism cause paedophilia? I think we should be told.

Later, she claims I am "mad" and "confused".

@beau_tox if it wasn't for mad Claire then we would never have bumped into each other via the tweet!Nice to meet you.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

@han_grrl yes have blocked her now. She actually doesn't want to hear the answers when given to her.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

But I do particularly since I have gone to the trouble of asking them!

@han_grrl she is a little disturbed and for some reason thinks I am a nasty feminist because I believe in equality. I also blocked her.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

Oh dear, more aspersions being cast on my sanity just because I disagree with her. How odd that she thinks someone who believes in gender equality is not a feminist. Feminists are always going on about gender equality.

@1party4all @han_grrl Claire I said I wouldn't answer via twitter and to send me an email. I am a sociologist not feminist anyway.
— Susanne Moore (@susannemoore) April 5, 2013

Wow. It seems I have made Susanne Moore renounce feminism. What a result!

Does this woman have even a shred of professional, scholarly or personal integrity?

But women like her infest academia peddling their useless mendacious shit that they cannot even defend.

She denies that feminism has weakened Western society, but where is her refutation of Breivik's contentions?

Can she prove that gender diversity in the workplace ie women in the workplace and out of the home, has not made labour less productive and less efficient while piling on the costs of hiring and firing labour including maternity and paternity leave, as well as the human cost of broken marriages, juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy? Of course she can't. That's why she told me not to waste her time, send her an email, or wait till she comes to London ...

Breivik claims that the PC-project is bent on “transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy” and “intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males”. But more than that, it has succeeded. The “feminisation of European culture” has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an “emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies”.

According to Jane Clare Jones, Breivik believes that ‘the degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and “emotionalism”. Indeed, the danger of women’s “unnatural” demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that “the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism”.’

Breivik believes that ‘the “feminisation” of the European male corresponds to the “feminisation” of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than “risk serious injuries while resisting”.’

Can an ideology that only selfishly acquires rights and privileges for its adherents on grounds of being female at the expense of men, children, the elderly and the public purse and which never considers the long term national interest ever be regarded as moral or rational or sustainable?

Feminism causes women to be as promiscuous as men and gives men the excuse to be as cowardly, hypocritical, irrational and capricious as women. Feminism is therefore destructive, immoral, irrational and evil.

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Following much of the media's initial "fact-free conjecture" about the origins of the atrocity in Norway, we have since had to reckon with Anders Behring Breivik's own account of his motivations put forward in his 1518-page manifesto entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. Overlooked, however, in the focus on Islamism and Islamophobia's culpability for Breivik's pathology is the way his gargantuan manifesto presents multiculturalism as just one form of the "ideology" which "now looms over western European society like a colossus". This ideology, most often known as political correctness, has, Breivik tells us, several other names. One of them is cultural Marxism, and the other is feminism.

Cultural Marxism is feminism.

Feminism is just another word for Cultural Marxism.

Feminism is the Sacred Cow of the West that is eating it out of house and home and pooping all over its carpet.

Breivik's introduction is entirely given over to a half-baked history of political correctness, "no aspect" of which, he tells us, is "more prominent … than feminist ideology". The PC-project is bent on "transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy" and "intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males". But more than that, it has succeeded. The "feminisation of European culture" has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an "emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies".

I can find nothing there to disagree with, except Jones' claim that Breivik's history of political correctness is "half-baked". She does not say how or why it is half-baked.

The antipathy to feminism – and women – threaded throughout Breivik's document is more than just incidental. The text is peppered with references to the pernicious effects of the "Sex and the City lifestyle, the propagation of sexual immorality (indexed by women's promiscuity), and the "erotic capital" women use to manipulate men. The degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and "emotionalism". Indeed, the danger of women's "unnatural" demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that "the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism".

A whole web of reasons are given for this conclusion, but two familiar constellations stand out. The first concerns feminism's purported sundering of the nuclear family and responsibility for a demographic collapse that opens Europe to Muslim colonisation. Too distracted by "having it all", western women are failing to breed enough to repel the amassing hordes. But, in their feminine naivety, they fail to realise that their comeuppance is on its way, their freedoms snatched by the invasion of the genuine oppressor. Barely submerged in this narrative – as in much cultural conservatism – is a profound anxiety about who controls women's bodies and reproductive capacities. In his concern to save us from ourselves, Breivik wants to drag us back to the 50s, limiting access to reproductive technology and discouraging women from pursuing education beyond a bachelor's degree. Alternatively, he suggests, we could "outsource breeding", and pursue surrogacy in low-cost countries or the development of artificial wombs.

This sci-fi fantasy of finally abolishing men's dependence on women's generative abilities is revealing. On the one hand, Breivik indicts feminism with causing our alleged "cultural suicide", both by encouraging reproductive treachery and also because women are apparently more supportive of multiculturalism. However, in another sense, Breivik's thought betrays an analogy between his monocultural nationalism and his veneration of a certain type of "warrior" masculinity, an analogy that revolves – as his manifesto's title implies – around the ideal of masculine independence. The "feminisation" of the European male corresponds to the "feminisation" of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than "risk serious injuries while resisting".

Jones appears to disapprove of Breivik's assumptions but does not or cannot say why.

Unlike Breivik, we must resist the urge to make easy causal connections.

Jones appears to be accepting that feminism is causally connected to European weakness while resisting the urge to make this casual connection. Talk about having your cake and eating it!

No account of this man's background or beliefs about nationality, religion or gender can serve to explain his actions.

Why not? Breivik has already told us again and again why he did what he did. Those reasons are rational, though ruthless.

His cool enumeration of technicalities about downloading the document, his careful inclusion of a press-pack of photos, the chilling reference to the sacrifices involved in its "marketing operation" – all this serves to exhibit an inhumanity which opens a chasm between ideas and action.

What does Jones mean by "a chasm between ideas and action"? There is no chasm at all as far as Breivik was concerned. He saw what he thought had to be done, and he did it.

Nevertheless, while the behaviour of Breivik must, and can, only be understood as insanity, we would do our understanding a disservice by accepting it as only that.

What on earth does Jones mean? Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no but ... ? We must regard Breivik as insane even though he was also rational, this silly woman seems to be saying.

Why does is this stupid woman being paid to write her incoherent and timorous nonsense in The Guardian when I am not being paid at all, when it is I who already know what the problems and solutions are?